jury sides with graffiti artists over building owner | Page 6

Its the owner's building so he has every right to what he does with the building. The only right I can see from the artist is if the building owner makes money off his art work. The next time before this situation happens,both parties need to have some sort of binding contract to sort out the clauses

Its the owner's building so he has every right to what he does with the building. The only right I can see from the artist is if the building owner makes money off his art work. The next it happens both parties need to have some sort of binding contract

Click to expand...

their definitely had to be some streams if income etc. that place was a tourist trap.

The story is not as simple as is laid out in the OP. The artwork was done with permission and the owner of the building did not give the artists any opportunity to save their work before painting over it. The artwork was apparently very well known and could have been removed and put in a museum.

I'm not saying they should sue, but there is apparently an actual legal case here based on an established law.

In the suit, Mr. Baum contends that the art, created by recognized artists who had secured permission from the building owner, falls under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which has been used to protect established artists who have created public art that is of “recognized stature” on someone else’s property.

“We will make the jury aware,” he said, “that this was not graffiti, not vandalism, but rather work done with the permission of the owner, by artists of recognized stature, and protected by law.”

The story is not as simple as is laid out in the OP. The artwork was done with permission and the owner of the building did not give the artists any opportunity to save their work before painting over it. The artwork was apparently very well known and could have been removed and put in a museum.

I'm not saying they should sue, but there is apparently an actual legal case here based on an established law.

Click to expand...

Yes it is that simple. It’s not their building, so fuck em. There is this thing called private ownership.